Dial 999 and Die…

Christopher Houseman

It’s good to know what Joe Public’s life is worth when duty calls

We can but hope this is an exceptional case; but then facing an imminent danger to one’s life is also pretty exceptional for most people. So the question remains: Are you sure you want to trust the Police to save you? It could be your final answer anyway.

Ed Balls nasty man

David Davis

I’m saving my virginity for this election.

When I was a young boy, we were sometimes being warned, usually by our parents, about people called “nasty men”. We were all of course quite familiar with the history of WW2, as it had just occurred that morning in relative terms, so we wondered if Stalin was the finger-man, or if it was somebody else such as the Gestapo or the SD (as boys, we all were quite familiar with what the SD did and why, for it was only the 1950s). We didn’t think it was German Generals, since we knew all about these by name, and mostly they were “clean” insofar as behaviour on battlefronts was concerned. Even as sx- and seven-year-olds, we accepted a few departures from full Geneva-Convention-Stuff, “in the heat of battle” sort of thing. We even weathered the Cuban Missile Crisis without being “afraid to die”. It was only 1962, sex had not yet been invented, and so therefore we “knew that we were right”, and that “all will turn out for the best, boys!” in the end.

I now know what these “nasty men” were, and one of them is this one here. They were not people that my sad mum called “men who want to play with your wee-wee” ( I have never, ever, ever understood what the attraction of this might be, especially as it now smells most of the time whatever I do to the blasted thing) but actually politicians of the anti-liberal-Political Enemy-Class”.

If Ed Balls wants to come and play with my wee-wee, then everybody has his price, and I have mine. He can fondle my wee-wee, and suck me off (it will do nothing for me as I know this already: the practice of “fellatio”, forced on young men who didn’t see the point of it, by feminist women in the early-70s, appeared to me to be disgusting, un-necessary and totalitarian, since women were already pre-equipped with all the required apparatus anyway and the human mouth was not needed for the process) or do what he wants…but this is the price….. All remaining structures, political, concrete and virtual, that were ever Raised In This Land by the Socialists, and latterly by the GramscoFabiaNazis, will have to come down.

For ever.

And I mean _/ever/_ .

Soclialism must be eliminated, totally. For ever.

If the nasty-man wants to suck my wee-wee, then that is the cost.

Faith schools under attack…again

David Davis

Rather than bludgeoning “Faith Schools” (‘coz they hate them for being an alternative power-centre) to conform to the trumpeting of State-Nazi-Sex pursuits, in the guise of “PSHE”, it might be instructive if we saw something else. Such as, if we were allowed to see a breakdown of teenage pregnancy statistics by type of school. The “40.4 conceptions per 1,000 girls aged 15-17 might, just might, be rather concentrated within that sector of girls that goes to “non-faith” British-State schools.

In fact I suspect it probably is, but would be interested to see the evidence for my prejudice. My prejudice is against miserable humourless GramscoFabians gratifying their lust for coercive-collective-pornography, by forcing children to hear about “how to put on your partner’s condom”, and the like – being correct here.

I do not care if Tiger Woods is sorry for anything or everythhing

Micheal qwinning

Why does it matter to the world, what these men do? Does it matter if the golfer-chappy lives or dies? Not really.

But also, to help us from being assailed by this sort of news-rubbish-stuff too often, I agree with what Celia Walden (who is that?) said earlier today about sportsmen. They ought to be forbidden to marry until age 350 or somethng. And trying to sit their animal passions with what “sponsors” whatever those are want them to seem to be, is just mad and silly, it will end in tears as it has done with Tiger Woods and John Terry and who knows how many more.

And this is really realyl funny, you have to have a laugh, please have a look! It’s sort of a bit related to the guys above.

Girls have clearly moved on

David Davis

Many decades ago, my father – a scientist – described to me as a small boy a kind of injury out of pure scientific interest, caused by a stiletto heel making a self-shaped depressed-skull-fracture. It was like a trepanning-wound only small and D-shaped.The injuree was invariably male, in the 1950s and 1950s.

It was called “somebody-or-other’s syndrome” (I can’t google it sadly) named after the usual obscure central-European-Physician who first described it. Not Kleinfelter’s, nor Münschausen’s, but something like that.

Clearly, today’s new-labour girls, fired up by GramscoFemiNaZism and enragement that “models” and “WAGs” have invaded their “partners’ ” text-messaging, have moved on. This poor man had his entire eye taken out, and the fracture-zone passed into his brain.

Stiletto heels are good. At least, on short-girls, which is the right sort to be, they are.

They make the female stance and walk more exciting to watch, which is their primary courting purpose, and also they bring her secondary sexual characteristics up nearer to yours when you have got her in a hug. This is the next most important objective, and ideally leaves her still shorter still than you, which is necessary or else you would need to stand on a box, which means that your name is Bernie Ecclestone (and that would not be good.)

If she injured him in a taxi, then although we do not know the circumstances, I suggest one of the following:-

(1) He is “NSIT” *** which means he made a pass privately in the taxi, was rejected, and was rejected utterly and suddenly (unlikely that she would react so violently)

(2) She discovered he’d given his phone to a mate who sent pictures of him (taken earlier) to a call-girl, while pretending the pics were of the sender (possible these days)

(3) She read his credit-card-statements and decided to injure him about the massage-parlour-stuff on the way home after a date (likely)

(4) She was annoyed that he’d posted pics of himself on Facebook, with a former girlfriend on holiday in Ibiza the year before (very probable in today’s climate of opinion)

(5) She was annoyed that he’d not glassed-up a dude who looked at her in the pub (also sadly probable).

*** “not safe in taxis”

Very good and sound logic

David Davis

From David Farrer at Freedom and Whisky (.com)

And Freedom and Whisky finds more justification for leaving the State out of your arrangements.

Let’s just remind ourselves how the CHICAGO-GAULEITER won

David Davis

Sex was invented in 1963 – roughly when he was born -  in order to put him in power in 2008. 45 years is all it took, to bring down The City On The Hill (You idiots! Asleep! Isolationism! You let the GramscoFabiaNazis into your patch, when you might have got away with locking them out just on ours…):-

But at least human beings can bugger these FabioDroids up. Listen up, people: it matters to us in other nations who is the President of the USA. The right one, and we shall be all right – the wrong one, and we shall all fail including you:-

You people in North America clearly did not get it right in 2008.

I shall be writing, in the next few days, perhaps, or perhaps not, about why the next US President, and subsequent ones, should be chosen by the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Alliance, UK, London-Kent-Scotland-and-Lancashire, England.

Very interesting about “Tiger” Woods

David Davis

Do you know what? I can’t figure out why a man would want, in the modern world, to be called “Tiger”. I could not give such a male man a job, if he came to me at interview, and if I had a “firm”, for I would not know really how serious he was about work and life. Perhaps he ought to have thought about his PR-presentation before getting so rich and vulnerable. Perhaps “Fred” or “Robert” or “John” would have been a better name: it would indicate solidity, and the ability to get up in the morning and come to work.

If I was called “Tiger”, I could not marry any woman in the 21st century. Why? Because the GramscoFabiaNazis have deconstructed what female children (as humans, so they think they are) see in male children as humans (as they think they are), and have turned it into Celeb-mag-fodder.

Obviously, if you are called “Tiger” and you are then a complete failure at everything you do, before the age of 18 or so, then it’s a no-no for you to be an international sports droid…this just won’t wash. “And here’s TIGER! the Spurs goalie, and he’s just let in the 421st against his own side!!!!…and it’s only the 41st minute!!!!”… no, it won’t wash. Sorry. “Tigers” can’t be faiilures, or they’re dead.

So, why are 35,124,896 tarts all ganging up on one very (very very) rich man, all at one moment? isn’t it suspicious?

Are they pissed off about the money? (The most lovely sex of all can be for money, it is said, if you have the resources to have anything you want (like “Tiger” Woods), because you can dictate what you want and you can get it: we all know it in our hearts. Christians and other religionistas shoot the entire world in the foot by pretending otherwise, and much serious misery results as a result of this result, specially where GramscoFabiaNazis inspire impressionable young intelligent women to be “femin” ists.)Why did the Ottoman Emperors (and Mohammed, pbuh) have harems? For the good of their souls? Nah. Sex with plenty of women, for one man, as often as possble, is lovely. It’s what it’s for. That’s what the Y chromosome is for. That’s why so many, many of us are all here, today: it’s the great success story of the paleobiology of man.

Didn’t “Tiger” pay then enough at the time? Was that the problem? I think not. I thought these things were pre-agreed? And there’s too many of them anyway – he could not have short-changed them all: that would be crass and careless. And that part of the deal with expensive “escorts” (I’m sure all these women were expensive – they look it) was that, as an escort, you didn’t talk afterwards? What’s the point of these girls otherwise? If you didn’t talk for the sake of the sake of the Bilderbergers who have shagged you, and whom you would not want to expose for the sake of your own life at Copenhagen and after, then why would you “talk” about “Tiger” Woods? Money?

Does it matter if he had any or all of them at all, except to him and his wife, and if so, what is the MSM doing, getting involved at all? Is it any of their effing business?

Or is it that the world-global-governance has had “enough” of “Tiger” Woods, for some other quite unrelated reason?

Perhaps we are no better than the Incas: we set up someone to be an idol, for a year or a few, and then we tire of him, and we pull him down, into the  blood and dust.

I don’t give a f*** for golf. I don’t even understand the point of it. It is my privilege to be able to be like that and yet stay alive in the 21st century, when everyone goes for it. I even hosted an international Golf tournament slightly opposite my house, a year or so ago, for a mate, to show my astonishing magnanimity on this matter.

But I hate what I think is going on here. I don’t think a libertarian society would do this to people, over something that goes on in their private lives. It’s not even clear to me that he’s actually shagged all these women. if he did, so what? Is it anybody’s concern except of them, him and his wife? At least, if he did, he’d have got some pleasure out of it, in return for the delf-righteous preachings of his supposedly-aggrieved “sponsors”.

Or….is “Tiger” Woods a global warming skeptic…or even a _/denier/_ ???

Teh funneh

David Davis

I didn’t know that the Religious Worshippers, currently infesting Copenhagen, were as normal as that.

What is a government “sexual health policy”?

I didn’t mean really to write about this at all: I simply scanned the paper this evening, and this popped up. But the sub-heading about “sexual health policy” made me wet myself in hysterical laughter. If I did not think that what the British State is deliberately trying to do, to turn 70 million people into cretinoid uncritical enslaved barnyard animals, on purpose and via long-term strategic (and focussed) planning, I would think it was merely funny…….

David Davis

If the Government owns our bodies, then it can dictate a “policy” about how our bodies go about interacting with other bodies. If it does not, then it can not. It has only to come clean about what it intends.

A “sexual Health policy” smells strongly of things that Baldur von Schirach, or Stalin, or Mao or the dead Kim Jong-Il, or one of those other Nazis whose names I can’t presently recall such as that funny woman here somewhere in the 1900s, would have instituted.

I am a former Anglican through parental force-majeure when younger ["Does the school offer confirmation? Let him be confirmed!"], and in 2001 I decided simply to Walk To Rome one sunny Sunday in a Catholic Church (no “instruction” was needed here. I just walked.

You see, our problem- and our Burden -  is that Libertarianism Means Never Having To Say You’ve Lost Your Moral Compass (because you haven’t)…you ALWAYS know where you are going, and it enrages “ordinary people” with an intensity not to be contemplated – which is why most libertarians will be murdered one day…  Being moreover a molecular biophysicist, I am not sure I approve of abortions for convenience’s sake. They smack to me strongly of a Feminazi way of undermining “men”, as one tactic for reverse-engineering the fragile threads that hold Western Civilisation together.

The potential arrival of a small child, together with crying, sleepless nights, pooey nappies, the necessity of strange and hard-to-prepare-foods, the lack of intellectual/epistemological-conversation with it for at least six or more years, and the like, seems to me to be the potential cost of all this “free” sex which was invented by Kenneth Tynan in 1963. (Sex in this age and time is never free! Think about it…) Like crime, for which the only motivation is an individual decision to commit it, the most important motivation for the occurrence of sex is the decision of two people to have it now.

Stalinist governments interfering in individual human sexual relations simply project onto populations whatever the “government” thinks people should be doing in bed. If governments pay teachers of 6-year-olds in primary “schools” to tell the said 6-yr-olds how to “have safe sex”, and how “mutually-pleasurable” that is, then that is what they will try to do as soon as the boy can “get it up”. As the Wireless Tele Vision is so riveting, and cannot be missed, then abortions of human foetuses will therefore occur.

Yeh, that’ll stop the little buggers

David Davis

Telling them all about how lovely sex is, from the age of about 8, has not stopped them doing it as soon as the boys can get it up and the girls can slip it in, so that strategy has failed…so let’s just tell them even earlier, shall we!

I may be very obtuse, but I can’t see the logic in telling very very young children all about things to do with things which the same tellers ensure that they can’t consent to, for years and years. The difference between the ages of five and sixteen, seen from the viewpoint of an infant, is a stretch of geological time. I know, I remember.

These are things best left ot the families of the children, to sort out…ah, I forgot! The State now owns children, not families!

Whar goes around comes around, and we are now the Faraway Country of which the Czechs know little

David Davis

The Czechs have given in. (Who can blame them? Not I.)

BUT they have betrayed Britain!

Shame! We wuzz robbed! Klaus knuckles under! Munich! Death! War! But….

Poor guy, what can he do? We are not ultimately his problem. Like they were not ours, in 1938.

We will have to look to ourselves. AND I don’t care what Cameron says or pretends to say or not say, about “referenda” and on whay terms, or means or does not mean, for it is quite irrelevant. Nothing will change unless individual Tory politicians in power are forced at gunpoint to do so and to yield to majority opinion and gracefully accede.

We have all known this, for many many years, which is why all the thousands and thousands and thousands of  liberal blogs exist: we all pretend it is otherwise, but it is not.

In the early 1990s in the warm wet afterglow of Soviet-Imperialist dégringolade, I used to, while over there, tell my Czech and Slovak friends about the deceptive and only partially-visible undercurrents embedded in “the End of History”, and that “The Germans are Not Your Friends”. Happily I guess, they did not believe me for a moment about the Germans, for there are many German car factories in the Czech republic, employing thousands of Czech and Slovak workers, and turning out not Trabants but rather snazzy VWs rebadged as Skodas, and also a lot of Skodas. Rovers and MGs are now of course Chinese. This is probably for the best, and probably a good thing for us all, if all factors are taken into account. I also warned them about the post-Gorbachev-USSR, but that will be another future story, the end of which cannot yet be perceived.

In the meantime, a new threat to individual liberty and small-nation-self-determination has emerged. If you are here, you know all about it. It is called the EU. Now you must be told, if you are new here and also perhaps not a Subject of The Queen or even a citizen of the wider Anglosphere, that “the EU” was not what was originally being sold to us here. What was initially aggressively, and very, very, very submissively sold, as an “honest, Guv, this is a really really great train, you ought to be on it” thingy,  to the British was a “Free trade Area” or “Common Market” – we should have got our hackles up at that already but didn’t. We already could have had free trade but it was supressed by the GramscoStalnists in power in the UK  from 1945 to 1979. The Schumanno-Monnetia-Nazis thought we’d bite on “Market” and fail to notice the barbed tarantula-sting in the “Common” bit, and they were quite right. We were had.

It did help them of course, that in the decades involved we did have more or less perverted-GramscoFabiaNazi-collectivophile administrations: these saw the way things were blowing in Europe and the world, saw the nice food with olive oil and garlic and the lovely sexy girls and the warmer and drier and more predictable weather and the vineyards and the cheap sex, and jumped in, on our behalf but for them and not us. (Why else did upper-class women throw wine over Sit Ternece Conran at parties, as a punishment for selling glass Tuscan pasta-jars in Habitat for £3.99 so “everyone” could buy them?)

To the British Enemy-Class, the EU is about power, money, unaccountability for expenses, junkets to Bamberg (twinned with Bedford!), sex with expensive “escort girls” (and you can pass it through as “entertainment”, which it of course is) and “calling for harmonisation”. To British people who can afford it, the EU is about lovely, lovely, sexy food at “bistros” that we were “just passing”, not having to “change money”, sex with expensive British chavettas in Ibiza so you can chat them up while pissed, getting English beer in Benidorm, garlic to make everything taste of something, and being able to fly to Prague for “stag” “dos” for 99p return. Oh and “buying that really great farmhouse, to live off the land”….

All this of course is not what Europe was really about.  Not even Jean Monnet, the Great buroNazi, envisaged that it would be that easy to defeat the Real Enemy. We did that ourselves. Europe, as in the “EU” is about recreating a Reich.

That’s why you have to keep voting until you give the right answer….until the Terror-Police are here which means you are relieved of having to vote, for the choice is the right answer or else to be killed. They are a little late with the Terror-Police, but I am sure this is being worked on even today.

Poor Vaclav Klaus, noble and intelligent chap that he is, cannot help us now. It is even the fate of his people’s principal politicians who mattered to be like that. How ironic and sad can you get? So. Either our history as a nation, and as the foundry-crucible of libertarianism, comes to and end here, or else something is done. There is no long-term strategic problem, as the history of Russia and the USSR has shown, in denouncing and repudiating things laughingly called “treaties”. We should look as a nation to our own interests. If we are a libertarian nation, then we ought to look out for our own interests even more fiercely, since we shall find ourselves under open threat even from those whom we once called our friends – as I have always warned and will continue so to do. There is no founding libertarian doctrine that says a nation state, once it has discovered itself either again or anew, ought to observe treaties that are inimical to its survival and which have been made by its predecessors.

Even Westminster says that no Parliament can irrevocably bind its successors.

So, well, there you are.

Shall we just go, now?

Gosh

Michael Winning

So how many are they allowed? I wonder also, what becomes of the young men who statistically lose out? I mean if you get a load of wives, where does that leve someone like me who can’t even pick up a girl?

I suppose it approximates to a Free Market then?

Or just perhpas she does not fancy him

Michael Winning.

Mrs Obaba didn’t hug or kiss poor old Mr Berlusconi. Shame on her. Perhaps they don’t like him in the Enemy Class because he got to have all the girls before the real game was exposed. Perhpas my master will call a caption competion, i know he likes those, the prizes are fore what Obama is thinking….

No Silvio, you have enough of us already on your yacht!

Bet you 50p, that the NUS does _not_ have a “Men’s Officer”

UPDATE! I have worked out what is going on. It is a BBC/Enemy-Class project to destroy the University of Buckingham. To me, images of the fire in the Reichstag come to mind.

For foreign readers in free nations such as China, Buckingham University is the only UK University which is not funded by the State (not even partly, so there!)

David Davis

I may say more about this later, if I can think of something suitably humorous.

If memory serves me still, one Don, who taught me quite a bit, I think said once over a good High-Table dinner, “one isn’t supposed to f*** the women students, but it does go on a bit now and then”.

Here’s the original Times Higher Ed Supp article, so you can see exactly where and why Prof Kealey’s remarks were deliberately taken out of context.

I don’t usually comment on this sort of thing….

One sort of knows, in the background, that it goes on, but one is rather tired from striving to pay Gordon Brown and all that stuff….and Yemen and Afghanistan are rather far-away countries right now, of which we know little…

…but I even wondered about this picture for a LA caption competition – just look at the poor LITTLE girl’s face: this is her wedding photo, the poor mite – he’s “about 40″, and she’s eleven:-

David Davis

...you mean, I have to shag THAT?...

In my mind, there is no problem for a woman to marry an older man, in principle. I am 16 years older than my wife, and even the Director, Sean Gabb, married his dear and nice wife whom we know and love, when she was at the time about 12 or 13 years younger than he was. They have now caught up in age together, as you do, and as we have done. My wife is still 16 years younger than I am, but we are both now old warring scrag-bags together.

But I think for the wife to be “eleven”, as in the above picture, so it is said, is pushing at the boundaries of the envelope” a little bit, or even a lot. If this is what is going on, then I as a Libertarian who believes that individual humans have Natural Rights, believe this sort of process to be disgusting. If we believe that children are children up to a “certain age” (about which there can be some argument but broadly we all agree it is “about” 16 (or so) and therefore cannot consent legally to serious interpersonal arrangements or other sorts of contracts under that age, then that must be the case for all humans. It cannot be that our children here can’t do it, but Yemeni (or other) children can, for some spurious and quasi-religious or other pre-Renaissance pre-capitalist reason.

Ragged pre-capitalist, pre-classical-liberal, and barbarian-warlord-survival-guides, cleverly promoted and peddled as “religions”, and dealing with the disposal of debts, animals, defeated tribes, the enemy’s widows-of-beheaded-warriors, and his relict children, his men’s and boy’s severed heads, and his slaves and concubines, are no help to these poor children in the photo. Not at all.

Libertarians, when they will have regained The West (a long job, Boyo!) will have their foreign-policy-work cut out for some time. But perhaps not as long as against Lithuanian EU Commissioners who hate light bulbs.

This is the real, primary sort of Enemy-Class enemy that we ought to be “servicing”. We can then, having secured our civilisation, “service” people like that “Taliban” bloke who seems to be able to get lots of interesting and exciting weapons to attack our boys with. I can’t find a correct wikiref to “service”, which in the Cold War, meant “kill on the battlefield”. Sorry.

This here is very very funny and I do not know what to make of it at all..

…so I guess our reader had better read it and see for (him her it)self.

David Davis

I know – I’ll now refer to the reader as “the readroid”…that will fix the anti-sex-GramscoFabiaNazis …  oh, I’ve twigged…they don’t want people to have sex, ‘coz it’s nice. Only for them, not for “us”. Droit-du-Seigneur and all that semi-mythical crap – is that what they are thinking?

So how-they-gonna-create-enough-slaveproles then? After the Endarkenment has been brought about, and with the re-standardised pre-capitalist infant death rates and all that, to which we will go back forwards?

Just a little piece of moral relativism that floated past the window of the submersible, as we travel down into the cesspool

I bet you all 8.2p that a Moslem girl, home educated, would not be forced into a “State” “school”. The GramscoStalinist Fabian free sex buggers would never think of even daring to ask. Now I do know that most Libertarians are either atheist or anti-religious, but this is an issue of individual freedom. I have already said today on a comment that we can’t go round killing all the members of the Enemy Class upon the event of our victory on day one, since that will degrade us to their level: we will have, sadly, to continue to allow them the means to prosecute their perverted science on purpose, upon others. So the war will continue, until one side or other gets serious about a result…..

David Davis

Here.

Court orders Christian child into government education

10-year-old’s ‘vigorous’ defense of her faith condemned by judge

---

Posted: August 28, 2009
12:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level” has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too “vigorous” in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl’s “vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.”

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was “a step too far” for any court.

The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.

(Story continues below)

The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.

In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith” and that the girl’s interests “would be best served by exposure to a public school setting” and “different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief … in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.”

According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, “If I want her in public school, she’ll be in public school.”

The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering “the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others.”

“Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working,” said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.

“The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take.”

“The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, ‘Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,’” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. “There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court’s decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions.”

The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.

The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.

“Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda’s schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court’s decision daily,” the court filing requesting a stay said. “Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court’s ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.

“It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be ‘exposed to different points of view’ if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda’s best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda’s faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda.”

“The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent’s constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be ‘exposed’ to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old ‘vigorously’ believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court’s narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs,” the ADF said.

“Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court’s decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible,” the documents said.

The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn’t even look at homeschool curriculum.

“I don’t want to hear it. It’s all Christian based,” she said.

//

Obama, hear us! Find out what Ted Kennedy wants, and do exactly the opposite of what he asks

David Davis

When old GramscoFabiaNazis such as the “Kennedys” go to die, they are like elephants in a way, or worse: elephants are not known to repent in regard of their pasts sins, for we do not know if they understand the concept of Sin (the Bishop, when asked his opinion about sin, famously said: “I’m against it”) but at least elephants might not be considered essentially evil.

But “Ted” Kennedy (I honestly thought he’d been shot dead? – or was that all the others?) says he wants his dying wish to be an incubus on the American People. Well. That’s kind of like his grandfather.

Old Joe Kennedy, who used to try to shag his sons’ girlfriends, was against us in 1940. Of course you all remember: don’t deny it.

I may be “the babyboomer that the left lost”, being born in 1952, but I still can’t get this Kennedy thing. I will never figure out what the fascination with them was. The men didn’t even look like some object that a woman would like to be shagged by. Sacks of potatoes full of money, with penises attached to one end.

So what went on about them with all you Americans then? I’d just love to understand how and why you all got taken in by this bunch of shysters.

And as for the “Jackie” thingy -  (whatever her name was? Onassis, or was that afterwards?) A walking female skeleton+collagen-binders, wearing clothes and spending money at the same time? What  _were_  you thinking when you elected that? What did you think other nations would think of you and us? Deeply embarrassing and almost unexplainable. Bad. Fail.

Uranium, Tungsten, OIL, and young women of whom we have never heard…

…always have “amazing bodies”.

David Davis

As Auberon Waugh would have said: “I do not know”. But the Daily Mail always does.

The Daily Mail is about health scares and amazing bodies. I wonder why?

Please could somebody say who “Tess Daly” is? She can’t be a politician or I would have already heard of her. (I’ve looked up “Strictly Come Dancing”, to which she has some linkage, and I do understand what it is supposed to be, but what is the point of it?)

Perhaps, more importantly than presenting a dancing-prog, she works in MacDonald’s in a branch to which I have not been?

Oh! I know now! She’s a Wireless Tele Vision Cook! She does River Cottage!

She’s that neopastoralist old-Etonian pretending to be a woman, who bloody effing well ought to know better than proselytizing what he does on the telly!

Truly, the unbridgeable epistemological ravine -  between those who would like to say that there is no functional limit to the tonnages of Copper, Uranium, Tungsten and Chromium or OIL that can be mined, and those who watch Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and his amazing body after giving birth – is, er, epistemologically-unbridgeable.